Green Bay officiating

[dallasdave]

Yes it was. Anything else is an excuse. The Cowboys should have won that game. In the 3 loses they have given up 112 pts. That is not officiating.

thank you

 

[Sydla]

The official did not waive the play dead or blow the whistle.

Yes he did. It was ruled a sack. The official play by play on the NFL website said it was a sack.

If it wasn't a sack and they called a penalty on Mayowa, then the Packers would have run the next play from the 33 yard line. They didn't, they ran it from the 17.

The play started on the 18. Rodgers was sacked at the 2. If they called the ball incomplete, then the penalty on Mayowa would have resulted in 15 yards from the 18 yard line (the line of scrimmage). But that didn't happen. The next play was run from the 17, meaning they called Rodgers down at the 2 and then added 15 yards for the personal foul.......... ergo, the next play was run at the 17.

 

[Verdict]

Yes he did. It was ruled a sack. The official play by play on the NFL website said it was a sack.

If it wasn't a sack and they called a penalty on Mayowa, then the Packers would have run the next play from the 33 yard line. They didn't, they ran it from the 17.

The play started on the 18. Rodgers was sacked at the 2. If they called the ball incomplete, then the penalty on Mayowa would have resulted in 15 yards from the 18 yard line (the line of scrimmage). But that didn't happen. The next play was run from the 17, meaning they called Rodgers down at the 2 and then added 15 yards for the personal foul.......... ergo, the next play was run at the 17.

That was how it was interpreted but the official on the scene did not blow the play dead. And it should not have been a penalty.

 

[Verdict]

Yes he did. It was ruled a sack. The official play by play on the NFL website said it was a sack.

If it wasn't a sack and they called a penalty on Mayowa, then the Packers would have run the next play from the 33 yard line. They didn't, they ran it from the 17.

The play started on the 18. Rodgers was sacked at the 2. If they called the ball incomplete, then the penalty on Mayowa would have resulted in 15 yards from the 18 yard line (the line of scrimmage). But that didn't happen. The next play was run from the 17, meaning they called Rodgers down at the 2 and then added 15 yards for the personal foul.......... ergo, the next play was run at the 17.

What they say happened after the fact is not necessarily what happened on the field.

 

[Sydla]

What they say happened after the fact is not necessarily what happened on the field.

So what's your contention here? If anything, by giving us the sack (after the fact based on what you are saying), they gave us a gift. In the end, they called it a sack and yet you were upset above that they didn't give us a sack or intentional grounding.

Further, if they call grounding, it's basically the same result. There is no march off there. You either get 10 yards for intentional grounding and loss of that down if the contact happens inside 10 yards of the LOS or you get the spot distance and loss of down. In this case, the sack happened 16 yards behind the line of scrimmage. If they had ruled it grounding, the ball would have been spotted at the 2, just the same as a sack, and it would have been 3rd down. So the result from that perspective is negligible.

And yes, Mayowa was a penalty and a dumb play by him. Any time you run at a QB with your head down like him and make even a little bit of contact, there's a high probability it's getting called.

 

[RoboQB]

Go back and look the video. The video shows the refs moving in and stoppling the play before the hit. It was going to be in the grasp and a sack. That is what I saw on the replay. I did not notice in real time. But the replay shows it.

Yes. I went back and watched it. I missed it the first time... mentioned I was wrong a few posts later.
It's going to be a long two weeks... lol... ugh

 

[DogFace]

So what's your contention here? If anything, by giving us the sack (after the fact based on what you are saying), they gave us a gift. In the end, they called it a sack and yet you were upset above that they didn't give us a sack or intentional grounding.

Further, if they call grounding, it's basically the same result. There is no march off there. You either get 10 yards for intentional grounding and loss of that down if the contact happens inside 10 yards of the LOS or you get the spot distance and loss of down. In this case, the sack happened 16 yards behind the line of scrimmage. If they had ruled it grounding, the ball would have been spotted at the 2, just the same as a sack, and it would have been 3rd down. So the result from that perspective is negligible.

And yes, Mayowa was a penalty and a dumb play by him. Any time you run at a QB with your head down like him and make even a little bit of contact, there's a high probability it's getting called.

If he’s diving trying to make a tackle his head will likely be leading him. His helmet did not hit him. IMO. I’m not sure him just leading with his helmet is a penalty if there’s no contact. Looks like to me he’s going for his chest area and Rodgers ducks. There’s no telling if he would’ve pulled his head up if Rodgers didn’t duck and him have to aim lower at the last split second.

Regardless, there’s VERY little contact. Much more contact on Mathews dive at a sliding Dak and his helmet did hit Dak’s helmet.

Do you have the video? I still can’t see when the ref stopped the play or started to stop it.

 

[DogFace]

Yes. I went back and watched it. I missed it the first time... mentioned I was wrong a few posts later.
It's going to be a long two weeks... lol... ugh

Please post the video. I immediately erased my dvr to prevent losing my mind.

 

[DogFace]

Micky swears the ref “still had air in his cheeks” when Mayowa was diving. He’s adamant.

 

[RoboQB]

Please post the video. I immediately erased my dvr to prevent losing my mind.

I'm not the most tech savy guy but the game is being shown again on NFL network tonight at 8pm.

 

[JohnsKey19]

There is always one back breaking momentum changing call in every Green Bay game and it ALWAYS goes against the Cowboys. The roughing the passer call when Rodgers was in the grasp was a cluster **** for so many reasons. The refs didn't blow the play dead and he was in the pocket and intentionally grounded it.


It should have been a sack, loss of down, penalty for intentional grounding and killed Green Bay's drive. Instead it was a gift by the refs. Un ******* believeable.

Makeup call for the bogus unnecessary roughness penalty on GB in the 1st quarter. You had to expect it and at the worst possible time.

 

[FloridaRob]

I dont think there are make up calls. These guys are graded as individuals and as crews. I doubt they want two errors on their tape instead of one. They want to keep their gigs.

 

[diefree666]

It would be interesting to see what happens if it is a Pitt vs GB super bowl. How in the world will the officials figure out who to give the game to?

 

[Sydla]

If he’s diving trying to make a tackle his head will likely be leading him. His helmet did not hit him. IMO. I’m not sure him just leading with his helmet is a penalty if there’s no contact. Looks like to me he’s going for his chest area and Rodgers ducks. There’s no telling if he would’ve pulled his head up if Rodgers didn’t duck and him have to aim lower at the last split second.

Regardless, there’s VERY little contact. Much more contact on Mathews dive at a sliding Dak and his helmet did hit Dak’s helmet.

Do you have the video? I still can’t see when the ref stopped the play or started to stop it.

The crown of his helmet was leading. That's a no-no. If his head was up, it would not have been called.

And again, why are people so focused on whether the play was stopped or not? In the end, the final ruling helped us.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

no

I could've sworn Matthews hit Dak in the head, if we're talking about the same play. No call though.

 

[FloridaRob]

It would be interesting to see what happens if it is a Pitt vs GB super bowl. How in the world will the officials figure out who to give the game to?

LOL, Every game for and against every team are questionable calls. It is not limited to Green Bay and Pittsburgh.

 

[DogFace]

The crown of his helmet was leading. That's a no-no. If his head was up, it would not have been called.

And again, why are people so focused on whether the play was stopped or not? In the end, the final ruling helped us.

To my understanding the rule is leading with the crown and making contact. It’s not a hands to the face if a player goes towards the opponents face witt his hand then doesn’t make contact.

He made no contact with his helmet and the final ruling certainly did not help us. It bailed them out of a 3 and 18 at their own 2.

I’m not sure what you mean by the final ruling helped us. Should’ve been a sack with an intentional grounding call and no roughing.


I’d love to see the play and see when the ref started blowing the play dead.

 

[Sydla]

To my understanding the rule is leading with the crown and making contact. It’s not a hands to the face if a player goes towards the opponents face witt his hand then doesn’t make contact.

He made no contact with his helmet and the final ruling certainly did not help us. It bailed them out of a 3 and 18 at their own 2.

I’m not sure what you mean by the final ruling helped us. Should’ve been a sack with an intentional grounding call and no roughing.

He made contact. Now we can argue how hard the contact was, but nevertheless he led with his crown and made contact with Rodgers. That's going to get called more often than not across a league. That's just a dumb play by Mayowa. The last thing one should do in making a tackle is just lead with the top of your helmet. It opens you up to a call like that.

As for the "final ruling" helping us, by that I mean, they granted us the sack thus putting the ball back on the 17 yard line. If they had called the ball an incomplete pass, the Packers would then have had the ball on the 33. So I am perplexed why people are arguing over this whole sack/intentional grounding thing. They granted us the sack (which would have been the same result as a grounding call). We would have been screwed if they had just ruled the pass an incompletion.

 

[DogFace]

LOL, Every game for and against every team are questionable calls. It is not limited to Green Bay and Pittsburgh.

Clearly. And if any of us ref complainers we’re making that very simple argument we would be dumb.

We are making the argument that we get poor judegments that result in game changing very costly penalties. Dez catch. Pretend fake substitution and this roughing call are all from the last Green Bay losses. The time we beat them we clubbed them and there were no big calls.

Tell me about the play that game Dallas the game on a near unexplainable call. If anyone answers Detroit you’re disqualified for not knowing grabbing a face mask in an attempt to create separation is illegal.

 

[FloridaRob]

Clearly. And if any of us ref complainers we’re making that very simple argument we would be dumb.

We are making the argument that we get poor judegments that result in game changing very costly penalties. Dez catch. Pretend fake substitution and this roughing call are all from the last Green Bay losses. The time we beat them we clubbed them and there were no big calls.

Tell me about the play that game Dallas the game on a near unexplainable call. If anyone answers Detroit you’re disqualified for not knowing grabbing a face mask in an attempt to create separation is illegal.

there is not a conspiracy against the Cowboys and for Green Bay. That is just not true. Every team for and against have questionable calls. You have had multple people explain the roughing call and you just deny it happened. If you dont accept the logical and reasonable explanations to that play, I doubt any photo, video, or evidence I could produce would change your mind. After last Sunday you think giving Dez the catch would have changed the final result.